I agree with you that Origyptian was wrong to suggest the viper is ill-positioned in the cartouche and said so (Edited to include ... Origyptian speculates that the position of the viper is because it may originally have been a glyph of a quadruped animal. I think this is nonsense and the photographic evidence you provide in your post supports my view. There is nothing ill=positioned about the glyph. I argued that the glyphs themselves are drawn casually and in sweeping strokes because they were never intended to be viewed.)
What's your position on the orientation of the glyphs? That the quarry men were simply unaware of the final position of the stone once in situ, hence the 'anomalous' 90 degree clockwise orientation?
Post Edited (16-Jul-14 22:30)